Grunta wrote:
Hey Keith, what's the parallel here? How does the tobacco discussion fit with the title of this thread do you think?
|
Tobacco was , is not the 1st of the 'bad' things to get banned but the format that it took is certainly a blue print as to applying to alcohol.
So the point is, question is, did restrictions on tobacco sponsorship actually have the effect it was supposed to, or is it simply a propaganda stage to kick banning alcohol sponsorship off?....
What was the main influences that dropped tobacco usage....cost, advertising, display, education, ... or sponsorship?
I do not believe sponsorship was a hugely contributing influence and therefore it should not be the case with Alcohol add to that the unpublisised things like the REAL effect it DID have on events etc quietly disappearing....and there is no reason to expect any different for banning alcohol sponsorship... which it will be the minor events that hit ... not the big race events but the smaller stuff like ...... fishing tournaments...jnr sports events.
I do agree , there is an alcohol problem.. not just social behavour, crime, but also cost to the health budgets.... hit the social behavour issue... ie follow the advise of the front line guys... the police... and public referendums...both are about hrs, number liquor stores , availability.. and maybe advertising...
NOT sponsorship as the 1st hit...
The tobacco format experiment is very much the format it seems the alcohol format is going down.......Im sure the real lessons learnt from that could be applied far more effectively to the alcohol .. and the sponsorship need to be part of it...